Judgment 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. 2. On earlier occasion also, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today also, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Learned counsel for the State is present. Accordingly, I have gone through the record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 1998, whereby, the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1998 passed by Sri Kumar Dinesh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 782 of 1993/T.R. No. 47 of 1998, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year, has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court below. 4. The record shows that the petitioner has been made accused in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 47 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 782 of 1993, for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was a tempo driver and the informant had alighted from a bus in the bus-stand alongwith his daughter and had engaged the tempo of the petitioner for going to his house. There was one another person sitting with the petitioner and a bag containing a purse of the daughter of the informant, in which, there were gold ornaments and cash of Rs.500/-, were kept by the petitioner and his accomplice near them. Subsequently, the accomplice of the petitioner fled away with the purse of the informant's daughter. The petitioner, was ultimately apprehended and on his disclosure, the other co-accused was• also apprehended by the police and the stolen articles were recovered from him and the seizure list was prepared. 5. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons and cognizance was taken against them. The accused persons were ultimately put to trial. It appears that the other co-accused had absconded during the pendency of the trial and the trial was split up. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in course of Jrial. 5. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons and cognizance was taken against them. The accused persons were ultimately put to trial. It appears that the other co-accused had absconded during the pendency of the trial and the trial was split up. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in course of Jrial. P.W. 1 Kamaleshwar Tiwary is the informant of the case, P.W. 2 Deomuni Pandey is the seizure list witness and P.W. 3. S.M. Jahangir is the I.O. of the case. 6. The impugned judgments show that the informant has fully supported the case and the petitioner was also identified in the Court by the P.W. 1 Kamaleshwar Tiwary. The seizure list witness was also supported the case and in view of the evidence on record, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the I.P.C. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below. On perusal of the record, I find that the Courts below have' passed the judgments on the basis of the evidence on record and I find no illegality/irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below convicting the petitioner for the said offence, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. However, from the judgments passed by the Court below, I find that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not the first offender. The Courts below have not given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, or of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. In the present case, I find that the theft was actually committed by the accomplice of the petitioner and on the disclosure of the petitioner, the said accomplice was apprehended and the stolen articles were recovered from him. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason for denying the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason for denying the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner by Sri Kumar Dinesh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 782 of 1993/T.R. No. 47 of 1998, is hereby set aside, and the petitioner is directed to enter into the probation bond of Rs.10,000/- alongwith two sureties of the like amount each, for keeping peace and be of a good behaviour for a period of one year, and to appear and receive the sentence if called upon during the said period. The petitioner is directed to appear in the Court below for entering into the probation bond within a period of one month, failing which, the Court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and issue process against the petitioners compelling his attendance for entering into the bond. Upon entering into the bond, the petitioner shall be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 9. With this modification in sentence, this revision application is hereby, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.